born again?

[kingsherald]

Jesus tells people in the 3rd chapter of John that they must be "born again." So millions of Christians claim to be born again. Some say it happened when they "accepted Jesus." Other say when they were baptized. And still others say it was when they joined a certain church. But what does Jesus say. If you continue reading in the 3rd chapter of John Jesus says "That which is born of the flesh IS flesh and that which is born of the Spirit IS spirit. Jesus goes on to explain that the wind blows and you can hear it but you can't see it and "so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." Now all these people claiming to be born again still look like flesh and blood to me. I can see them and hear them. If they were born again of the Spirit they would be invisible like the wind. Of course nobody cares what the Bible says anyway so they just go on claiming to be "born again" and not having any idea what it really means.

Yes, you must be born again or you cannot see nor enter the kingdom of God. That passage from death unto life is only made in this body, on this earth, before the silver cord is loosed and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Yet, this being born again, is solely the act of the Spirit of God. It is God's work. Therefore salvation is by grace, a free gift of God, not of man's will, but of Him who calls. And His call is effectual and brings forth true conversion to Christ, and the fruit of repentance. This regeneration of the Spirit, takes a man who was dead in trespasses and sins, and makes him spiritually alive! And he comes forth to Jesus Christ, because the Spirit gives him faith to do so. They are not invisible like the wind. The Spirit is invisible like the wind, and the spirits of regenerated men are invisible. Yet a tree is known by its fruits. And those born of God bear the fruit of the Spirit unto God, and God is glorified. This is the fruit of repentance to which the Gospel calls us.

Salvation is by the grace of God, through the means of faith. All glory be to God alone!

 

[waitasec]

1) What dialect of aramaic is this (it would be helpful to me if you could post the aramaic characters)?
2) Why are you asserting Jesus would say this as opposed to another word which can mean (among other things) again, such as תּניכוּת or צוֹר?

as i said before my source is bart ehrman, jesus interrupted.

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Ehrman writes about the early Christians, using the term "proto-orthodox" to describe the Christian traditions that would later be defined as orthodox.[1] He describes first- and second-century Christians as not yet having a unified, orthodox tradition.[1] He is the author of a number of books in this area, including Misquoting Jesus (2005), God's Problem (2008), and Jesus, Interrupted (2009)....
Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry that's all i can give you...

Okay, how are you arguing that the pragmatics of the greek construction used would lend itself to a less clear understanding than a similar construction in aramaic? More importantly, what would that construction be?

nicodemus thought to be born "again" meant to re-enter his mothers womb...
this misunderstanding would happen in the greek... because "again" has 2 meanings in greek.

Which, as I said, puts it around 70 years after Jesus.

so you would agree that most scholars agree to this...

 

[waitasec]

In addition to my last post, I should also point out that there isn't really any agreement as to whether Jesus also spoke greek and Hebrew. Or rather, it seems extremely likely that he was familiar with both, but less so that he taught in either. Still there are a number of scholars who argue that Jesus would occasionaly have taught in greek for the benefit of the jews in his audience who only knew greek.

i agree that jesus spoke both languages but that is not the point i am trying to make
it really doesn't matter if jesus spoke greek and aramaic...
the point is the author of john was seemingly greek... and this misunderstanding would only happen in the greek.

most scholars believe he spoke aramaic just like most scholars believe the gospel of john was written in the late 1st century...more like 90-100 AD.

"The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel (c. 200) supports A.D. 96 or one of the years immediately following as to the time of its writing.[76] Scholars set a range of c. 90–100."

 

[Oberon]

as i said before my source is bart ehrman, jesus interrupted.

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This might be a good place to point out that I am pretty familiar with this field. I have an M.A. in biblical studies and classical studies and spent quite a bit of time in post-graduate studies on early christianity.

I know who Bart Ehrman is. In addition to some personal correspondence, I have read the following:

Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006.

I have also read some of his more popular works (misquoting Jesus, Lost christianities, Lost Scriptures, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, etc).

I actually really like his article in Early Christian studies on secret mark.

However, while his work in textual criticism is usually excellent, other work by him (particularly his popular work) is less so.

That being said, could you perhaps quote what Ehrman says about the aramaic construction Jesus would possibly have used versus the johhanine greek? And what he says about the aramaic word which he states Jesus would have actually stated? Thanks.

nicodemus thought to be born "again" meant to re-enter his mothers womb...
this misunderstanding would happen in the greek... because "again" has 2 meanings in greek.

The two meanings are limited by pragmatic constraints. I can't imagine how a similar construction in aramaic (although admittedly my knowledge of aramaic is very limited, as it comes mainly from my knowledge of ancient hebrew and aramaic lexicons) would make any difference.

so you would agree that most scholars agree to this...

Absolutely. And I would agree as well.

 

[waitasec]

I know who Bart Ehrman is. In addition to some personal correspondence, I have read the following:

Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006.

I have also read some of his more popular works (misquoting Jesus, Lost christianities, Lost Scriptures, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, etc).

I actually really like his article in Early Christian studies on secret mark.

However, while his work in textual criticism is usually excellent, other work by him (particularly his popular work) is less so.

That being said, could you perhaps quote what Ehrman says about the aramaic construction Jesus would possibly have used versus the johhanine greek? And what he says about the aramaic word which he states Jesus would have actually stated? Thanks.





The two meanings are limited by pragmatic constraints. I can't imagine how a similar construction in aramaic (although admittedly my knowledge of aramaic is very limited, as it comes mainly from my knowledge of ancient hebrew and aramaic lexicons).




Absolutely. And I would agree as well.

absolutely...
i'll try to have up for you tomorrow.
but i do not recall the aramaic word given, do you still want me to quote what he said anyway?

 

[Oberon]

absolutely...
i'll try to have up for you tomorrow.
but i do not recall the aramaic word given, do you still want me to quote what he said anyway?

If it is not too much trouble that would be very helpful. Thanks!

 

[waitasec]

If it is not too much trouble that would be very helpful. Thanks!

no trouble at all...

"Since Jesus was a jew who lived in first century Palestine, any tradition about him has to fit his own historical context to be plausible. Lots of our later gospels-written in the third or fourth century, in other parts of the world-say things about Jesus that do not make sense in his context. These things can be eliminated as historically implausible. But there are implausibilities even in ou four canonical Gospels. In the Gospel of John, chapter 3, Jesus has a famous conversation with Nicodemus in which he says, "You must be born again."
The Greek word translated "again" actually has two meanings: it can mean not only "a second time" but also "from above" (John 19;11,23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus: a person must be born from above in order to have eternal life in heaven above. Nicodemus misunderstands, though, and thinks Jesus intends the other meaning of the word, that he has to be born a second time. "How can I crawl back into my mother's womb?" he asks, out of some frustration. Jesus corrects him: he is not talking about a second physical birth, but a heavenly birth, from above.
This conversation with Nicodemus is predicated on the circumstance that a certain Greek word has two meanings (a double entendre). Absent the double entendre, the conversation makes little sense. The problem is this: Jesus and this Jewish leader in Jerusalem would not be speaking Greek, but Aramaic. But the Aramaic word for "from above" does not also mean "second time." This is a double entendre that works only in Greek. So it looks as though this conversation could not have happened- at least not as it is described in the Gospel of John."

-Jesus Interrupted

 

[Midnight Pete]

I was born again when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and was baptized --as an adult-- at Chartwell Baptist Church in Clarkson, Ontario.

So now I've been double-dipped.

 

[Oberon]

no trouble at all...

Great! Thanks this helps.

"Since Jesus was a jew who lived in first century Palestine, any tradition about him has to fit his own historical context to be plausible. Lots of our later gospels-written in the third or fourth century, in other parts of the world-say things about Jesus that do not make sense in his context. These things can be eliminated as historically implausible. But there are implausibilities even in ou four canonical Gospels.

So far I agree completely.

In the Gospel of John, chapter 3, Jesus has a famous conversation with Nicodemus in which he says, "You must be born again."
The Greek word translated "again" actually has two meanings: it can mean not only "a second time" but also "from above" (John 19;11,23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus: a person must be born from above in order to have eternal life in heaven above. Nicodemus misunderstands, though, and thinks Jesus intends the other meaning of the word, that he has to be born a second time. "How can I crawl back into my mother's womb?" he asks, out of some frustration. Jesus corrects him: he is not talking about a second physical birth, but a heavenly birth, from above. This conversation with Nicodemus is predicated on the circumstance that a certain Greek word has two meanings (a double entendre). Absent the double entendre, the conversation makes little sense. The problem is this: Jesus and this Jewish leader in Jerusalem would not be speaking Greek, but Aramaic. But the Aramaic word for "from above" does not also mean "second time." This is a double entendre that works only in Greek. So it looks as though this conversation could not have happened- at least not as it is described in the Gospel of John."

-Jesus Interrupted

Here's where I begin to have a problem. First, I will say that even if Jesus spoke greek, he probably taught almost if not solely in aramaic. However, Ehrman's analysis here seems to rest not so much on Nicodemus interpreting Jesus as saying "born again" but on Jesus really meaning "born from above." Except this doesn't really appear to be what Jesus meant (or rather, what the author of John meant). When Jesus goes on to explain his meaning, he doesn't mention a heavenly birth from above. Rather, he says that one must be born ex hydatos kai pneumatos/from water and spirit. Jesus then goes on to say to gegennemenon ek tes sarkos sarx esti, kai to gegennemenon ek tou pneumatos pneuma esti/that being born from flesh is flesh, and that being born from spirit is spirit. In other words, it seems that Jesus did mean a second birth, but meant this metaphorically. This metaphor could be misunderstood in greek or hebrew, and I would bet in aramaic as well.

 

[waitasec]

Great! Thanks this helps.



So far I agree completely.



Here's where I begin to have a problem. First, I will say that even if Jesus spoke greek, he probably taught almost if not solely in aramaic. However, Ehrman's analysis here seems to rest not so much on Nicodemus interpreting Jesus as saying "born again" but on Jesus really meaning "born from above." Except this doesn't really appear to be what Jesus meant (or rather, what the author of John meant). When Jesus goes on to explain his meaning, he doesn't mention a heavenly birth from above. Rather, he says that one must be born ex hydatos kai pneumatos/from water and spirit. Jesus then goes on to say to gegennemenon ek tes sarkos sarx esti, kai to gegennemenon ek tou pneumatos pneuma esti/that being born from flesh is flesh, and that being born from spirit is spirit. In other words, it seems that Jesus did mean a second birth, but meant this metaphorically. This metaphor could be misunderstood in greek or hebrew, and I would bet in aramaic as well.

my pleasure

that is very interesting
i looked up the word again in the greek lexicon

Search for 'again' - NAS - Include Study Resources - Study Desk

and i found that again anwqen,
means

1 from above, from a higher place
a. of things which come from heaven or God
2. from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3. anew, over again

what is your source?

this is john 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

 

[Midnight Pete]

I'm pretty sure Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

Was Greek spoken in 1st century Judea?

 

[Oberon]

what is your source?

Well I read greek for one. But when I do use a lexicon I use the BDAG or LSJ.

I'm not arguing that ἄνωθεν/anothen can't mean from above. The suffix then in greek means from a place, but of course often enough this acquires an abstract meaning and the original "whence" meaning is lost. The point is that there doesn't seem to me to be any indication that Jesus means "from above" and Nicodemos misunderstood. The problem was that Jesus was being metaphorical and Nicodemos was being literal, a problem which would occur if Jesus used Hebrew or Aramaic as well.

 

[Oberon]

Was Greek spoken in 1st century Judea?

Yes. See e.g. Meier's A Marginal Jew vol. 1 on this one. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern roman empire.

 

[waitasec]

Well I read greek for one. But when I do use a lexicon I use the BDAG or LSJ.

I'm not arguing that ἄνωθεν/anothen can't mean from above. The suffix then in greek means from a place, but of course often enough this acquires an abstract meaning and the original "whence" meaning is lost. The point is that there doesn't seem to me to be any indication that Jesus means "from above" and Nicodemos misunderstood. The problem was that Jesus was being metaphorical and Nicodemos was being literal, a problem which would occur if Jesus used Hebrew or Aramaic as well.

but it does mean from above if you look at john 19:11, 23 the same greek word, ἄνωθεν, is used for "above" specifically...

i'm so confused...

 

[truseeker]

But what about the part where Jesus said those who are born again would be invisible like the wind. All these people claiming to be born again are not invisible.

 

[waitasec]

But what about the part where Jesus said those who are born again would be invisible like the wind. All these people claiming to be born again are not invisible.

can you provide this particular passage?

 

[Oberon]

but it does mean from above if you look at john 19:11, 23 the same greek word, ἄνωθεν, is used for "above" specifically...

i'm so confused...

Words are in general polysemous. The same morphological form can refer to different parts of speech (e.g. the verb "will" versus the noun "will") or very different concepts (e.g. the noun "ring" in terms of a circle, a piece of jewelry, or an association of criminals in a smuggler's ring). Context, pragmatics, and constructions delimit and demarcate semantic boundaries. In other words, one determines whether logos refers to a word versus a narrative versus something else based on a number of factors. The same is true for anothen. Context in John 3 make it appear that Jesus does mean again rather than above, and the confusion is a matter of taking this literally versus figuratively.

 

[waitasec]

Words are in general polysemous. The same morphological form can refer to different parts of speech (e.g. the verb "will" versus the noun "will") or very different concepts (e.g. the noun "ring" in terms of a circle, a piece of jewelry, or an association of criminals in a smuggler's ring). Context, pragmatics, and constructions delimit and demarcate semantic boundaries. In other words, one determines whether logos refers to a word versus a narrative versus something else based on a number of factors. The same is true for anothen. Context in John 3 make it appear that Jesus does mean again rather than above, and the confusion is a matter of taking this literally versus figuratively.

having said that, i would also take into consideration what language they were most likely speaking. of course it cannot be proven, but if this conversation were in aramaic this misunderstanding would seem unlikely. jesus was speaking to a pharisee "who was a member of the jewish ruling council" and is referred as "Israel’s teacher" by jesus and they were in jerusalem for passover. so the odds that they were conversing in aramaic are pretty high.

i also find it very interesting that
jesus also says to nicodemus, "You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ which begs the question, were they speaking in the greek...?
consider...
1 they were both jewish
2 jesus was speaking to a jewish leader
3 they were in jerusalem for passover
they would be very likely to be speaking in aramaic.

do you think you can you find out if there is an aramaic word that means "second time" or "from the beginning" that can be polysemous in which jesus also uses in john 19:11, 23?

 

[Oberon]

having said that, i would also take into consideration what language they were most likely speaking. of course it cannot be proven, but if this conversation were in aramaic this misunderstanding would seem unlikely.

That's only assuming that in John Jesus really meant "born from above" not "born again." This doesn't appear to be the case, however. Whether Jesus was speaking aramaic, hebrew, latin, or german, the metaphor he was using could easily be misunderstood simply because of it's metaphorical nature.

In other words, Ehrman's argument runs as follows:

1) Jesus spoke aramaic
2) In the relevent text, he uses a greek word with two meanings
3) Jesus means "from above" (one meaning) but nicodemus interprets it as "again" (another meaning).
4) This misunderstanding would not have occured in Aramaic, where no word both means "again" and "from above" and therefore either the conversation was in greek (unlikely) or didn't happen.

The issue, however, is that premise 3 doesn't appear to be correct. The issue wasn't with using one of two meanings but using one meaning metaphorically. In this case, the aramaic would have had the same issue.

do you think you can you find out if there is an aramaic word that means "second time" or "from the beginning" that can be polysemous in which jesus also uses in john 19:11, 23?

I think you misunderstand me. Let's look at translations for a minute. In English, there are seperate words for "word" or "story" or "account" or "narrative." In Greek, all of these could be translated as logos or mythos. If I were translating from English to greek, it is easy to imagine a situation where I meant "listen to my word" not "listen to my story" and this distingtion was lost in the greek translation, which might be rendered both times into the same sentence: akoue ton mython mou
The point is, just because the translation has a certain ambiguity doesn't mean anything unless the ambiguity is part of the narrative. If Jesus had said a word in greek with two meanings, and Nicodemus understood one of them when Jesus meant another, this would matter. If Jesus uses a word which just happens to mean to things, but the misunderstanding results from something else (metaphor), then this only matters if this metaphor is impossible in Aramaic. It isn't.

 

[tomato1236]

What bugs me is when people say stuff like, "I was born again on March 12 at 3:57 P.M." I believe we do need to be born again, but I think it is generally not something that just happens at a specific time that can be carefully noted. It involves a change of heart and that often takes time.

I as born again. And again. And again and again...